Ask any question about Shia-Islam thread

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Could you give me the chains for the ahadith you have mentioned ?

    I'm currently looking into the reference you gave:

    أُصول الكافي 1 : 405 كتاب الحجّة ، باب ما أمر النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله)


    I can only find the following two ahadith under this chapter:

    ـ عدة منأصحابنا ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، عن ابن فضال ، عن أبي جميلة ، عن محمد الحلبي ، عنأبي عبد الله عليه*السلام قال من فارق جماعة المسلمين قيد شبر فقد خلع ربقة الإسلاممن عنقه.

    Grading: Dh'aif. [Mirat al uluq]


    And:

    وبهذا الإسناد، عن أبي عبد الله عليه*السلام قال من فارق جماعة المسلمين ونكث صفقة الإمام جاء إلى اللهعز وجل أجذم.

    Grading: Dh'aif [Mirat al Uluq]


    I'll look into the intepretation nonetheless[i'll need to refer to a few others here, so give me time] , but i'd like to know the chain bywhich you got the hadith you had quoted for the version you showed?

    With regards to The imams of Ahlulbayt a.s quoting something, and the prophet quoting something, and the same quote being found for both, this is exactly what shia Islam is about.

    The Imams of Ahlulbayt a.s are the presevers of the Sunnah of Muhammed s.a.w. When they speak a fiqh issue, or speak on an Aqaed issue, it is none other than what Rasullulah s.a.w taught, preached, allowed, accepted.

    From Rijal Al Kashi:

    Abu Ali Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Riayah al-Zuhri al-Tahhan said: narrated to us Muhammad b. Abdallah b. Ghalib who said: narrated to me Muhammad b. al-Walid from Yunus b. Yaqub from Abdalla b. Khafaqa who said: Aban b. Taghlib said to me: I passed by a group who blamed me because of my narrating from Ja’far (al-Sadiq) عليه السلام, so I said: you blame me for narrating from a man whom I have never asked about anything except that he said about it - the messenger of Allah said"
    Bro I gave you the sources, in the spoiler in Arabic, if you didn't get the arabic here is the translations:
    Can be found in:
    Usuul Al-Kafi Kitab Al hujaah vol1 page 405
    Bihar vol 27 page 72
    But either way you get the point:
    stick to the majority, which you view as a fallacy so are the infallible fallible after all?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    Bro I gave you the sources, in the spoiler in Arabic, if you didn't get the arabic here is the translations:
    Can be found in:
    Usuul Al-Kafi Kitab Al hujaah vol1 page 405
    Bihar vol 27 page 72
    But either way you get the point:
    stick to the majority, which you view as a fallacy so are the infallible fallible after all?
    I could understand the arabic brother, i went through Al Kafi, using the reference you gave me :
    أُصول الكافي 1 : 405 كتاب الحجّة ، باب ما أمر النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله)


    In this chapter , there were two ahadith[both were Dhai'f] :


    ـ عدة منأصحابنا ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، عن ابن فضال ، عن أبي جميلة ، عن محمد الحلبي ، عنأبي عبد الله عليه*السلام قال من فارق جماعة المسلمين قيد شبر فقد خلع ربقة الإسلاممن عنقه.

    Grading: Dh'aif. [Mirat al uluq]


    And:

    وبهذا الإسناد، عن أبي عبد الله عليه*السلام قال من فارق جماعة المسلمين ونكث صفقة الإمام جاء إلى اللهعز وجل أجذم.

    Grading: Dh'aif [Mirat al Uluq]


    I could not find this anywhere at all in the chapter:
    من خلع جماعة المسلمين قدر شبر خلع ربقة الإيمان من عنقه
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    I could understand the arabic brother, i went through Al Kafi, using the reference you gave me :
    أُصول الكافي 1 : 405 كتاب الحجّة ، باب ما أمر النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله)


    In this chapter , there were two ahadith[both were Dhai'f] :


    ـ عدة منأصحابنا ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، عن ابن فضال ، عن أبي جميلة ، عن محمد الحلبي ، عنأبي عبد الله عليه*السلام قال من فارق جماعة المسلمين قيد شبر فقد خلع ربقة الإسلاممن عنقه.

    Grading: Dh'aif. [Mirat al uluq]


    And:

    وبهذا الإسناد، عن أبي عبد الله عليه*السلام قال من فارق جماعة المسلمين ونكث صفقة الإمام جاء إلى اللهعز وجل أجذم.

    Grading: Dh'aif [Mirat al Uluq]


    I could not find this anywhere at all in the chapter:
    من خلع جماعة المسلمين قدر شبر خلع ربقة الإيمان من عنقه
    Here it is with the narration:
    ورواه في الوسائل عن أحمد بن محمد البرقي في المحاسن عن محمد بن علي الحلبي عن أبي عبداللّه (عليه السلام) بهذا النصّ : « من خلع جماعة المسلمين قدر شبر خلع ربقة الإيمان من عنقه »

    ا في الكافي عن عدّة من أصحابنا عن أحمد بن محمد عن ابن فضّال عن أبي جميلة عن محمد الحلبي عن أبي عبداللّه (عليه السلام)قال : « من فارق جماعة المسلمين ونكث صفقة الإمام ( الإبهام خ ل ) جاء إلى اللّه أجذم »
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Here is a Fatwah by Ayatullah Khamanei (ha):
    Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa: Insulting the Mother of the Faithful Aisha is prohibited
    From his english website: http://english.khamenei.ir/news/3905...f-the-Faithful
    The Leader of the Islamic Revolution said, in response to a question on religious matters, “Insulting figures and symbols celebrated by Sunni brethren, including the wife of the Prophet of Islam [Aisha] is prohibited. This includes the wives of all prophets, particularly the master of all prophets Muhammad (May God’s greetings be upon him and his household).
    I would be interested to know if it is still actually a part of Shi'ism to curse/ask the removal of mercy from various people based upon the original works of Shia - the motive of Sistani's fatwa is simply that to do such things would cause Shia to be hated, ostracised and oppressed by Sunnis, rather than because it is fundamentally wrong as a matter of principle.

    --

    I have a question: why do Shia believe that Umar (RA) caused Fatimah (RA) to miscarry when there is no Sahih narration of this event (even in Shi'i books), rather only weak/fabricated narrations? I have seen an Al-Islam article where they tried to explain that the number of weak narrations is so numerous it becomes Sahih, as well as quoting from a Sunni author which was really a Shia book falsely attributed to him (or that might have been on another topic, I will check); if I recall, didn't Shia rijjal studies only start centuries after Sunnis had done so? This thus brings me to my second question: how can Shia hadith even be trusted when Shia rijjal studies started so late and is only a shadow compared to its Sunnis rijjali counterpart, and also parts of Shia rijjal comes from Sunni rijjal?

    Again I hope my tone doesn't come across antagonistic again, but these are genuine questions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I am going away for three or four days, inshAllah i will address all of these posts when i get back inshAllah. I thank you for your patience and will start with Al Farhans posts first.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    No problem

    As i stated before, we have divergent books of hadith. In these books of hadith are narrators, and chains of narrators. For example, if i narrated from you, who narrated from x, from y , from z, who heard the Messenger of Allah, Muhammed s.a.w say something.

    So you see, due to divergent opinions on the most reliable routes, the trustworthy narrators, and the best sources to obtain the truest words of Muhammed s.a.w and his habits, commands, etc, shia's and sunni's have each made judgements on narrators, individuals, and who they consider to be reliable.

    Therefore, while there is much in common between shia's and sunni's with regards to the Sunnah of Muhammed s.a.w, there are also differences, stemming from each party deeming different narrators/sources/books reliable for obtaining the Sunnah of Muhammed s.a.w

    Salafi-type groups however, deem shia muslims to be deviants, and if they are not layman, to be kaffirs and apostates[some deem all shia scholars as kuffars. There are some users on this forum who have refused to reply to my greetings of salam (peace), have called me a 'rafidhi' (abusive word for shia's when said by a non-shia), simply because i am a shia muslim.
    That's awful!
    I'm so sorry to hear that some users have refused to reply to your greetings!!
    You seem like a lovely person

    Thanks once again!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Additional Questions:

    Q. Is it original Shia belief that the Quran has been changed; is the Quran we have today agreed by Shia to be the revelations which Muhammad (SAW) finalised (in the exact number and arrangement of verses and the arrangement of Surahs)?

    Q. Is anyone who believes that the Quran has been altered in number of verses, arrangement of verses and arrangement of Surahs a kafir?

    Q. I have seen you discuss this on ShiaChat with others, and I think you and I might agree on this topic (if I remember your opinion correctly, although I might be wrong), but irregardless of what you personally believe, is it true to say that the majority Shia view is that it is permissible to directly ask the Ahlul Bayt/Prophet (SAW) to make dua to Allah on their behalf so that they might directly intercede? What do early Shia scholars say?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm back brothers and sisters. InshAllah i will be able to answer a few of these. Out of principle, if i think i know an answer, but am even the slightest bit unsure, i will delay my answer because i have to back it up or double check with those who study in the hawzah or others who have the knowledge.

    Give me a little bit more time so i can answer in the order of who rightly asked in the first place.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    I'm back brothers and sisters. InshAllah i will be able to answer a few of these. Out of principle, if i think i know an answer, but am even the slightest bit unsure, i will delay my answer because i have to back it up or double check with those who study in the hawzah or others who have the knowledge.

    Give me a little bit more time so i can answer in the order of who rightly asked in the first place.
    You are managing two threads' worth of responses, so take your time and do not overwhelm yourself inshaAllah
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    I'm back brothers and sisters. InshAllah i will be able to answer a few of these. Out of principle, if i think i know an answer, but am even the slightest bit unsure, i will delay my answer because i have to back it up or double check with those who study in the hawzah or others who have the knowledge.

    Give me a little bit more time so i can answer in the order of who rightly asked in the first place.
    Personally I don't see the point and the huge weight given to answer simple questions including simple aqedah questions, which make someone turn to an entire hawza for help.

    Also I would have hoped for your answers based on authentic shia sources (openly obtainable) rather than the sweetened and much deliberated voices of the hawza ( who may not give a satisfying answer)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Do you believe that a Sunni can never reach the level of a mu'min? If so, can you clarify the reasoning for this and particularly the implications that this holds for Sunnis in the afterlife. The Shirazis believe that Sunnis must be treated as Muslims in this world (that is to say, Shari'i rulings must be applied to us) but we are essentially doomed in the afterlife. Do the Maraji that you seem to follow (i.e. Sistani and Fadlullah) agree with this or disagree?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    Personally I don't see the point and the huge weight given to answer simple questions including simple aqedah questions, which make someone turn to an entire hawza for help.
    In terms of answering simple Aqeedah questions, on the first few pages i have some clear responses about shia aqeedah with regards to the ahlus-sunnah. I believe therefore it is clear that the Ijma is that sunni's are muslims, that we share the same one God, the same Prophet s.a.w and the same Holy Book. I provided to you video's of shia ulema, sources from books, testimony - rather than my own rosy attempt at unity.

    You asked me about a niche area, from a scholar whose book itself is not widely known or read - or even recommended to read by shia's, who had lived in the past, making comments which are problematic, and not expressed by the Ijma of shia scholars.

    I have not read the book in its entirety, however, and i too wished to enquire about it - and what the position of the particular book is in our madhab. The student from the hawzah replied to me four days ago, but i had left the board for a few days for something important [i had no access to the internet].

    I will inshAllah today itself post the reply given to me by the student of the Hawzah.

    Also I would have hoped for your answers based on authentic shia sources (openly obtainable) rather than the sweetened and much deliberated voices of the hawza ( who may not give a satisfying answer)
    I presented a plethora of sources - obviously not anywhere near what is available- of shia ulema clearly stating that sunni's are muslims, that we share the same God, Prophet, and Holy Book. That is the Ijma.

    You have asked about something unclear - a book that is niche, the vast majority of shia's have probably not read. The manner in which it was discussed by the author itself was problematic and seemed to go against the ijma. Thus, due to it being unclear, i sought the opinion of someone - not a scholar himself - but studying and may have had access to the book, and to what the teachers had themselves recommended about this book.

    I received an answer, which i will present to you shortly, inshAllah.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    Here it is with the narration:
    ورواه في الوسائل عن أحمد بن محمد البرقي في المحاسن عن محمد بن علي الحلبي عن أبي عبداللّه (عليه السلام) بهذا النصّ : « من خلع جماعة المسلمين قدر شبر خلع ربقة الإيمان من عنقه »

    ا في الكافي عن عدّة من أصحابنا عن أحمد بن محمد عن ابن فضّال عن أبي جميلة عن محمد الحلبي عن أبي عبداللّه (عليه السلام)قال : « من فارق جماعة المسلمين ونكث صفقة الإمام ( الإبهام خ ل ) جاء إلى اللّه أجذم »
    Salamunalaykum,

    Thank you for your patience and apologies for the delayed reply - i have been away.

    There is also an issue with the authenticity of the hadith.
    Spoiler:
    Show

    As for the grading, we have ابی جمیله in the chain of the first narration. Abu Jamilah is the kunyah of Mufazzal ibn Salih (مفضل بن صالح). Based on the viewpoints of scholars in Rijal he is not trustworthy; He is accused of fabricating narrations and telling lies. Here are some the sources:

    -

    مفضل بن صالح أبو جميلة الأسدي النخاس
    مولاهم ضعيف كذاب يضع الحديث روى عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام و أبي الحسن عليه السلام.

    رجال ‏العلامة الحلي ص : 258


    -

    المفضل بن صالح أبو جميلة
    السكوني و قيل الأسدي مولاهم النخاس، بالخاء المعجمة و السين المهملة ق، م كان يضع الحديث.

    رجال‏ ابن ‏داود ص : 518

    -

    المفضل بن صالح أبو جميلة الأسدي النحاس
    مولاهم ضعيف كذاب يضع الحديث‏

    رجال‏ ابن‏ الغضائري ج : 6 ص : 122

    So that narration is not authentic.




    However, there are a few important points to consider either way:

    [Brother ibn Al-Hussain, who studies at the Hawzah has stated]:

    The key-word in the narration is Jama'ah, and there is another tradition reported from Imam Ali (s) who says, the hand of Allah (swt) is with the Jama'ah. Beware of division, for certainly the stray from the people is [food] for the Shaytan, just as the stray from the flock is for the wolf.
    إن‏ يد اللَّه‏ مع‏ الجماعة، و إياكم و الفرقة، فإن الشاذّ من الناس للشيطان، كما أن الشاذّ من الغنم للذئب‏

    This has nothing to do with the concept of following or not following the majority, rather it has to do with unity and sticking together as a community. You can have differences of opinions, or not agree with the majority on different matters and views, while still being part of a congregation and community. When scholars discuss the principles of building a true Islamic community, they generally reference these narrations.


    A point to make[ this is from me now]:

    Even in those days, shia Islam was not the majority, but the minority. The ahlulbayt of Muhammed s.a.w were persecuted, as were their followers. We have many ahadith about this, acknowledging the truth was not being followed by the majority, in a way that there's almost no doubt about this.

    Taking into account the grading, intepretation, and clear consensus from the ahlulbayt a.s about the scarcity of true followers, there is no way this could be considered to mount a challenge to the concept of the Prophet s.a.w not being mas'um, or the imams of the ahlulbayt asws who preserved his sunnah not being mas'um.

    Even those who challenge the principle of them being mas'um recognise the need to bring in stronger arguments.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    Either way, I think we can conclude the tatbir topic that some shia allow it while other don't. And that it might be a dying ritual.
    It's not as simple as that.

    Ayatullah Sistani has stated he has no opinion on it. Anyone claiming he has explicitly supported it, or spoken out against it, is lying.

    The other scholars who do allow it are speaking not all arguing for it and supporting it and actively encouraging it. Many who do allow it speak purely from a fiqh perspective. Is the act initself haram? Many then place conditions of it. If it causes loss of limb, for instance, it is harram. If the practise causes the widespread attack on muslims, and the madhab of the ahlulbayt, ruining and tarnishing the image, it is forbidden. [One could argue the act itself to the majority of human beings , perhaps due to the innate i.e repulsion of blood, the way a civil society functions may be repelled by it]. And of those who allow it, few if any have said they can justify the act in shia books. Even ayatullah khui who seemed to permit it under strict conditions himself has refuted weak narrations used in favour of supporting it afaik - but i will have to double check this , because it may not have been ayaullah khui.

    Furthermore, there are then a large number of scholars who actively speak against it, and these are also some heavy weights, so to speak. The likes of Ayatullah Khomeini (rh), Ayatullah Mutahari (rh), Ayatullah Fadllalah (rh), to many in the present day, from the likes of Ayatullah Khamanei (ha), Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi (ha), who have not just said it is haram, or impermissible, but you've seen most of them speak out against it in the harshest manner.

    Yes, there are a number of shias who perform it, though if you took the percentage of those who actively do it, it would be less than a hundreth of one percent, maybe even less than that. Even those who adhere to the view under strict conditions it is permissible, in and ofitself, many don't do it themselves.

    It's a recent and cultural innovation in the way it is performed, and may Allah (azwj) bring the end of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    Salaam.
    I can provide the arabic text bro. But it is very hard to find context for this.
    I tried to find the context for it but not possible (at least to me).
    But before we get into that let us discuss the book and its author who you are very quick in dismissing, he is Seyyed Nematollah Jazayeri was a well established shia scholar whose teachers included Al-Hurr al-Aamili and Al-Majlisii and he himself is a descendant of imam Musa Al-Kadim.
    So not just some rabble from the streets.
    You can read more about him here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seyyed...ollah_Jazayeri

    Now for the Arabic source:
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Al-Jazairi is doing comparative look at different religions and sects and in particular asharis and their ''ilk'' and how they are closer to christians and jews in their understanding of God. And that indeed they and their ''likes'' will enter hell with their brethren for eternity. Then he goes on to say what I mentioned earlier:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    We share no god with them, we share no prophet with them and we share no imam with them (abubakar). Because they say their god is the one whose prophet mohamed left behind abubakar as a successor. As such we do not believe in that god, nor do we believe in that prophet. That god is not our god and that prophet is not our prophet...
    "...And on the other side this shows (since we don't believe in the same god? is that the justification for what follows?) that it is permissible to curse all the opposers, nay it shows the compulsory requirement to curse them.
    therefore it is clear that we must absolve ourselves from any connection with them and doing so is one of the strongest pillars of iman.."
    In the second page the author goes on to continue his message of 12ers being the true muslims, and everyone else is destined to drown since imamah is the only salvation as was the ark of noah, whoever was on it gained salvation and whoever was not aboard drowned.
    And many other points that everyone speaking arabic can see and read on.

    So please find the context for me here.
    Before i provide an answer to the question, it is important, as a truth-seeking individual, for you to acknowledge that i have presented already the views of shia Ulema on the status of Sunni's, and the ijma. For one who wants to know what the consensus of shia belief is with regards to sunni muslims, it is essential not to delve into opinions which are not based around thos consensus or put forth in the way the consensus does.

    Thus, as i have already previously stated, the consensus among shia scholars is that sunni's and shia's share the same God, the same Prophet s.a.w, and the same unchanged Holy Book. Thus, if someone plays on words and poetics to suggest otherwise [perhaps not literally, but perhaps poetically] we don't agree with it.

    As for the author in question, here is what brother Ibn Al Hussain has told me[it was a time where there were open attacks towards shia's by sunni's and vice versa, a volatile time]:

    "Sayyid Nematullah Jazairi - as much of a great scholar he was and some of his works are extremely important & useful - lived during a time where many Shi'i scholars openly attacked the Sunnis. He himself was no less in this regards (look at how he dedicates a whole section on the supposed death-day of Umar - I wrote an article disproving any connection of 9th Rabi' al-Awwal with the killing of 'Umar), and many times you will also see him recording weak and even fabricated stories and narrations in his books, especially in Anwar al-Nu'maniyyah. The book has a lot of weak stuff, to the extent that it has been attributed to some scholars who believed that reading certain books of Sayyid Nemtaullah Jazairi (or perhaps it was reading Anwar al-Nu'maniyyah specifically) is legally (shar'an) problematic. "
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    I would be interested to know if it is still actually a part of Shi'ism to curse/ask the removal of mercy from various people based upon the original works of Shia - the motive of Sistani's fatwa is simply that to do such things would cause Shia to be hated, ostracised and oppressed by Sunnis, rather than because it is fundamentally wrong as a matter of principle.
    Salamunalaykum,

    I thank you for your patience, and apologies for the delayed reply. I will answer the first question , and the others when i get time inshAllah.

    I believe it is important to consider and understand that shia muslims firmly believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s had a God-given right to succeed Muhammed s.a.w, and that Muhammed s.a.w had appointed him. Thus, we believe those who usurped the Caliphat, by default, wrongly assumed the power of Cilaphat, which belonged to Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s.

    Additionally, we believe the ahlulbayt a.s were wronged in other ways. We find in Saheeh Al Bukhari where it states, Fatima a.s, a woman who embodied patience, one of the leaders of the women of paradise, died angry with Abu Bakr, and believed she had a right to Fadak. Irrespective of the arguments you use, or i use, for this issue, it is essential to consider how Ali ibn abi Talib a.s, Ibn Abbas r.a, and Fatima a.s, who were the family of Muhammed s.a.w, who knew fiqh and islamic principles, especially pertaining to their own inheritance far more than anyone else, would even consider claiming something that is not theirs. Put aside that, how it would cause someone not only to stop speaking to Abu Bakr, but to die angry with him.

    We find that the root-cause of the instability in Islam, the chaos that emerged, was all due to the seeds sown at the beggining. You see, Uthman Ibn Affan was from the clan of Banu Umayyah. He rose to power after a commitee / shura was carefully chosen by Umar ibn Al Khattab, placing people with clear conflicts of interest who would be biased towards Uthman Ibn Affan, thus leading to his rise.

    Uthman Ibn Affan, from the Clan of Banu Umayyah, placed his family above others. He allowed the strength of Banu Umayyah to grow, financially and politically. Muawiyah, the son of the one time great, great enemy of Muhammed s.a.w Abu Sufiyan, were all from the line of Banu Umayyah.

    You thus find, Muawiyah being behind many of the wars waged against the ahlulbayt a.s , put aside Jamal, think Siffin, among others. Then look to the treaty with Hasan a.s, where he had to , out of greater good, make a peace treaty with Muawiyah. Ibn Kathir himself records that Muawiyah tried to force Hussain a.s to give his oath of allegiance to his son, Yazid.

    Who was Yazid? The man according to many ulema of the ahlus-sunnah, who was a drunkard, played with monkeys, was on the verge of being uninhibited and wrecking the religion, and was the one who ordered the killing, persecution and harm, as well as massacare of companions of Muhammed s.a.w, and his dearest among his ahlulbayt a.s on the plains of Kerbala.

    Should shia's, be allowed to thus, believe it was the right of Ali a.s to the caliphat role, and it was wrongly usurped? I see no reason why one can not believe that. It follows automatically, if one disobeys Allah azwj, and hurts the Ahlulbayt a.s, that they by default, hurt Muhammed s.a.w. And one knows that the one who hurts Muhammed s.a.w, hurts Allah azwj. But it all boils down to the original question, and difference on who should have led after, and if i believe Ali as should have led after, and was clearly appointed, those who took it away from them disobeyed the command of Muhammed s.a.w, and that of Allah azwj - by default.

    I see no reason why my academic and historical viewpoint on who should have led after the Prophet s.a.w, should be taken as anything more than that, or used to spread fitnah. We differ historically on our view on it, you are entitled to your opinion, me to mine.

    As for insulting, and such things, this is the understanding:


    In Islam, we have the principle of basic Adhab, harmony, unity, and tolerance. As a matter of principle, just because i disagree with someone, it does not mean i begin to abuse them, and start to mock them, it is not really the proper manner in which to engage in a discussion of such a hotly disputed topic.

    We find in Nahjul Balagha: "I dislike you starting to abuse them, but if you describe their deeds and recount their situations that would be a better mode of speaking anda more convincing way of arguing" [About Muawiyahs men]
    https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-bala...ing-abuse-them


    Furthermore, in Islam, we have the princple of wanting a United Ummah. Muslims should be brothers and sisters of one another. Therefore, respect must be shown, even if one disagree's with the actions and has a different historical view point on issues, or a different theological view point, they should absolutely recognize the need to respect the symbols of the other madhab, this applies not only to shia's about sunni's, but for sunni's with regards to shia's. If muslims begin to infight, and there is secterianism, wide spread abuse of such highly revered figure's in each school, it will promote bloodshed, intolerance and hate, and cause the entire ummah to erupt, divisions to be even more prominent, and forget shia's being oppressed, it will weaken the ummah as a whole, sunni's or shia's, and strengthen those who neither want shia's not sunni's to exist.


    Yes, there is also a principle that shia's are oppressed worldwide. I have family members living in area's where they can't even openly practise their religion. I've been there, and i had to conceal my faith, out of fear of my life and safety. Why would anyone want to promote an act which would allow radicals to continue to spread hatred and intolerance in such a manner?

    With regards to asking Allah azwj to remove his mercy, it's forbidden to perform publicly. Whatever anyone does in their home/four walls, is up to them and Allah azwj. If they have commited wrong, Allah azwj will punish them. We find in shariah law, even homosexuality if commited and not brought into public view, is not something we can condemn or prosecute, or punish. I also do not promote, nor have seen in decade(s) anyone promote the l'anah of the caliphs.


    Suffice to conclude, insulting and abusing the symbols of the ahlus-sunnah is forbidden. That's clear in and of itself. And i believe for someone who revere's the caliphs, they should welcome and promote this ruling, and not those of zealouts who want to abuse them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    I have a question: why do Shia believe that Umar (RA) caused Fatimah (RA) to miscarry when there is no Sahih narration of this event (even in Shi'i books), rather only weak/fabricated narrations? I have seen an Al-Islam article where they tried to explain that the number of weak narrations is so numerous it becomes Sahih, as well as quoting from a Sunni author which was really a Shia book falsely attributed to him (or that might have been on another topic, I will check);
    .
    Be careful of Al-Islam. Not every book on there is agreed on by us, or accepted by us, it's simply a large library of books. The authors of the books themselves have to be scrutinised, as well as what they are saying.

    I have no opinion on this issue. It is also not part of shia aqeedah. Believing in it does not make one more of a shia. We find that even Ayatullah Fadllulah, while not denying the event itself, puts some question marks into the actual attack, though he affirms there is enough evidence to suggest the threat occured initself [rather than the act taking place] , though he does not affirm it did not happen either.

    In my view, there are enough solid evidences to use in arguing against the actions of the caliphs , one does not need to even rely on this.

    However, i will examine the validity of what you are saying and study this event in further inshAllah and try to form an opinion on it [though it would be my own layman opinion] and look into it and read up on it.

    I am not affirming, nor denying anything you have said - it's important to make that distinction.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scythia)
    Questions (you've repeatedly avoided answering this).

    1) Can people get into Jannah without Allah's mercy? Yes/no.

    2) Now as you ask ask Allah to remove mercy from Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra), you are actually asking Allah to send them to hell? Yes/no.


    I prefer quick yes/no responses Tawheed as they are indeed very straight forward questions
    I want to know the response to this aswell
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scythia)
    Questions (you've repeatedly avoided answering this).

    1) Can people get into Jannah without Allah's mercy? Yes/no.

    2) Now as you ask ask Allah to remove mercy from Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra), you are actually asking Allah to send them to hell? Yes/no.


    I prefer quick yes/no responses Tawheed as they are indeed very straight forward questions
    I want to know the answer to this aswell
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scythia)
    Questions (you've repeatedly avoided answering this).

    1) Can people get into Jannah without Allah's mercy? Yes/no.

    2) Now as you ask ask Allah to remove mercy from Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra), you are actually asking Allah to send them to hell? Yes/no.

    I prefer quick yes/no responses Tawheed as they are indeed very straight forward questions
    I want to know the response to this aswell
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 1, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Study resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.